How much would it cost to cost an origin of life experiment? The cost I’m thinking specifically for materials and analysis.

Minimum cost for a single Miller-Urey type experiment for starters. Would such a thing be available in kit form?

• Sterile 5-liter glass flask connected to a 500 ml flask half-full of water.
• Gases methane, ammonia.
• Electric spark. Heating for a month.
• Analysis cost (by others): FTIR, Microscope, SEM, TEM, Gel electrophoresis, GC.
• Reagents, eg. acids, stains.

Next step up would be:

• Sterile 5 cubic metres steel tank cleaned with acid, internal compartments for evaporation and condensation.
• Gases, liquids and solids hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, water, iron powder (oxygen-free), H2S, magnesium silicate powder, phosphine, kaolin powder, NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2.
• Electric spark. Heating for six months.
• Analysis cost (by others): FTIR, Microscope, Microtome, SEM, TEM, Gel electrophoresis, GCxCG-MS, XRF, Ramen spectroscopy.
• Reagents, eg. acids, stains.

according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies apparently it costs about $140 to $170 per week to bring New Human Life up in Australia

Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

dv said:

Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

dv said:

dv said:

Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

dv said:

Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

You make a reasonable point. Replace “about” with “up to”.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

You make a reasonable point. Replace “about” with “up to”.

It could be something that’s set up reasonably cheap, hopefully could run long term, could be a high school project that runs in the background and is checked regularly

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

dv said:

Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

Computer modelling and replicate / validate it in the real chemical world.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

Computer modelling and replicate / validate it in the real chemical world.

how could we computer model it when we haven’t any parameters?

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

Computer modelling and replicate / validate it in the real chemical world.

how could we computer model it when we haven’t any parameters?

What?

We have all the parameters.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Computer modelling and replicate / validate it in the real chemical world.

how could we computer model it when we haven’t any parameters?

What?

We have all the parameters.

so why haven’t we done it then?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

Computer modelling and replicate / validate it in the real chemical world.

Some thoughts

Study of how energy is transformed into matter

Early development of computer based software instructions leading to future real 3D printed life forms

Study of electricity over different bio-molecular circuits (Body muscle movements)

Study of how early perceptions are developed across the frequency spectrum in a evolving / developing body.

Study of how chemicals in the body are transformed into emotions

Study of electricity being stored and retrieved in the brain

Study of how decisions are created based on stored information

Study of higher level thinking behaviours

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how could we computer model it when we haven’t any parameters?

What?

We have all the parameters.

so why haven’t we done it then?

Computer modelling has been done. To replicate the full scope would be a huge computing project, but it seems likely that it would be feasible during our lifetimes, given the rapid increase in available computing power.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

What?

We have all the parameters.

so why haven’t we done it then?

Computer modelling has been done. To replicate the full scope would be a huge computing project, but it seems likely that it would be feasible during our lifetimes, given the rapid increase in available computing power.

so we don’t actually know the exact parameters? or whether they all apply?

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

What?

We have all the parameters.

so why haven’t we done it then?

Computer modelling has been done. To replicate the full scope would be a huge computing project, but it seems likely that it would be feasible during our lifetimes, given the rapid increase in available computing power.

Yes genome DNA, RNA and other molecular tweaking on the fly will require serious computer power.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so why haven’t we done it then?

Computer modelling has been done. To replicate the full scope would be a huge computing project, but it seems likely that it would be feasible during our lifetimes, given the rapid increase in available computing power.

so we don’t actually know the exact parameters? or whether they all apply?

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so why haven’t we done it then?

Computer modelling has been done. To replicate the full scope would be a huge computing project, but it seems likely that it would be feasible during our lifetimes, given the rapid increase in available computing power.

so we don’t actually know the exact parameters? or whether they all apply?

and chaos ensued

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Computer modelling has been done. To replicate the full scope would be a huge computing project, but it seems likely that it would be feasible during our lifetimes, given the rapid increase in available computing power.

so we don’t actually know the exact parameters? or whether they all apply?

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so we don’t actually know the exact parameters? or whether they all apply?

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

You’re asking me where you might find information about physics, chemistry and biochemistry?

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so we don’t actually know the exact parameters? or whether they all apply?

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how could we computer model it when we haven’t any parameters?

What?

We have all the parameters.

so why haven’t we done it then?

I think because it requires too much information

A scientist working in that area would have to be a biologist, a chemist, a programmer and understand physics of life, understand DNA RNA GENES and all the related other science fields that are required

That’s a lot of information.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

You’re asking me where you might find information about physics, chemistry and biochemistry?

no, just what the stuff you have to plug into a computer, like the chess program.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so we don’t actually know the exact parameters? or whether they all apply?

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

Someone can make a list.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

Someone can make a list.

Its how the list is connected that’s the tricky part

and seeing it go from computer screen to something that lives would be incredible

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

We DO know the exact parameters.

Compare it to chess. We do know all the exact parameters of chess. What we don’t know is how many possible chess games there are, or whether chess, played perfectly, will always be a draw. We can scribble the parameters of chess down in a few hundred lines of code. To test all the derived outcomes would take more computing power than has yet been applied.

The parameters involved in biogenesis rely on well known physics, chemistry, biochemistry. What is the most likely path to DNA/RNA, in the real world, is a massive computing problem.

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

You’re asking me where you might find information about physics, chemistry and biochemistry?

so you agree that it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established, and that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals ¿

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

You’re asking me where you might find information about physics, chemistry and biochemistry?

no, just what the stuff you have to plug into a computer, like the chess program.

Very well.

Perhaps the best modelling system around now would be Desmond, (or at least was, some years ago: MZL can update me) which includes the following information in its design:

thermodynamics
kinematics
quantum field theory and associated bond dynamics
quantum chromodynamics
nuclear physics
derived chemical laws such as baryon conservation
nuclide stability and relative abundance
and at the top side, (approaching from the other end of the problem, so to speak) the formula and structure of DNA/RNA

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so where will i find these exact parameters? is there a list?

You’re asking me where you might find information about physics, chemistry and biochemistry?

so you agree that it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established, and that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals ¿

Yes and I was happy to say so in 1890, you may quote me on that.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

You’re asking me where you might find information about physics, chemistry and biochemistry?

so you agree that it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established, and that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals ¿

Yes and I was happy to say so in 1890, you may quote me on that.

good lord, 0K

Having all the information available as a package would be handy for researchers in that field.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Having all the information available as a package would be handy for researchers in that field.

Also it would take more time to train people working in this area because of all the overlapping science fields.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

You’re asking me where you might find information about physics, chemistry and biochemistry?

so you agree that it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established, and that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals ¿

Yes and I was happy to say so in 1890, you may quote me on that.

almost fair, your interferometer found no evidence of Aether but it only took 120 years for an upgrade to detect the 21st significant figure change in a stellar experiment that proved The Medium Does Move after all

Tau.Neutrino said:

Having all the information available as a package would be handy for researchers in that field.

Well there are a number such packages, such as Desmond I mentioned before. But to replicate events of extremely low probability in a very large event space requires more computing power than you’ll get at the Apple store. Although a number of models (ie, guesses) exist, it is mainly thought that life arose in stages, rather than going straight from moosh to fully replicative self-sustaining DNA/RNA life. Each of those stages, it is though, relied on events that, locally, could be considered ridiculously improbable but, in a event space of maybe 10^47 molecules, with each molecule undergoing thousands of collisions per second, over a period of 10^16 seconds, the overall probability of the event occurring somewhere sometimes becomes reasonable.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

so you agree that it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established, and that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals ¿

Yes and I was happy to say so in 1890, you may quote me on that.

good lord, 0K

we’ve really lowered the bar on these absolute misattributions today

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Having all the information available as a package would be handy for researchers in that field.

Well there are a number such packages, such as Desmond I mentioned before. But to replicate events of extremely low probability in a very large event space requires more computing power than you’ll get at the Apple store. Although a number of models (ie, guesses) exist, it is mainly thought that life arose in stages, rather than going straight from moosh to fully replicative self-sustaining DNA/RNA life. Each of those stages, it is though, relied on events that, locally, could be considered ridiculously improbable but, in a event space of maybe 10^47 molecules, with each molecule undergoing thousands of collisions per second, over a period of 10^16 seconds, the overall probability of the event occurring somewhere sometimes becomes reasonable.

never heard of her

I mean if the point that SCIENCE and Chrisp are making is that we don’t know everything even about basic science, next year some new information could come to light that flips the whole script on molecular biology etc.

Fine, I concede that’s true.

dv said:

I mean if the point that SCIENCE and Chrisp are making is that we don’t know everything even about basic science, next year some new information could come to light that flips the whole script on molecular biology etc.

Fine, I concede that’s true.

I accept your sword.

;-)

dv said:

I mean if the point that SCIENCE and Chrisp are making is that we don’t know everything even about basic science, next year some new information could come to light that flips the whole script on molecular biology etc.

Fine, I concede that’s true.

And I concede to a little confusion about who is making what point.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I mean if the point that SCIENCE and Chrisp are making is that we don’t know everything even about basic science, next year some new information could come to light that flips the whole script on molecular biology etc.

Fine, I concede that’s true.

And I concede to a little confusion about who is making what point.

fair, we thought ours was somewhat a softer point than that of ChrispenEvan, like literally, we don’t know the exact parameters, but just like how even if we get the forecast wrong, we still get weather (tips hat to Zarkov), we’re not averse to people doing a simulation

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I mean if the point that SCIENCE and Chrisp are making is that we don’t know everything even about basic science, next year some new information could come to light that flips the whole script on molecular biology etc.

Fine, I concede that’s true.

And I concede to a little confusion about who is making what point.

fair, we thought ours was somewhat a softer point than that of ChrispenEvan, like literally, we don’t know the exact parameters, but just like how even if we get the forecast wrong, we still get weather (tips hat to Zarkov), we’re not averse to people doing a simulation

That seems to be an accurate appraisal. I’m a hard taskmaster.

Collecting the right information could be done by algorithms and AI

Connecting the right information will be bit a bit harder because they are a lot of gaps in our knowledge base

and this

Some people have a very secretive, jealous or money driven attitude to information,some greedy people want to own ideas or to sell them.

The evolution of life will involve will involve many points (possible billions or more) of information, which will lead to knowledge about life arises, which in the end will be information.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

dv said:

Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

> Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

I agree about the quintillions of litres of fluid, but possibly as short as a million years. It took only a decade or two for the Moon to form. About 100,000 years for all the asteroids.

A gasometer contains up to 347,000 cubic metres of fluid. So an experiment containing 100,000 cubic metres is not out of the question. I’d like to cost that.

I can. The paper “Storing syngas lowers the carbon price for profitable coal …” gives a gasometer cost of $340 per cubic metre, based on $22 million for a gasometer size 65,000 cubic metres. That’s not too expensive, compared to the cost of spaceflight.

Copied from Meme Machine thread.

mollwollfumble said:

If memes are a model for the origins of biological life, then replicants must have been swarming in huge numbers in the ancient oceans, with food to grow, just waiting for a “body” to attach to. One early paper said that the early Earth had a metres-thick layer of hydrocarbons on the surface. I can well believe it. I have an idea that under a hydrogen dominated atmosphere, water evaporation from the surface layer generated condensation polymers, and water below the surface layer hydrolysed polymers that didn’t make the cut.

As for what those polymers could have been, I can only imagine that replication came about by hydrogen bonding as a sheet. Beta sheet proteins are held together by hydrogen bonding. Collagen fibrils are held together in sheets by hydrogen bonding. Kevlar is held together in sheets by hydrogen bonding. Other polymers, I wouldn’t have a clue.

As for what the body could have been. I can only imagine say lipid bilayer or protein complex or iron nanoparticle or similar.

I’m getting more and more convinced that iron particles played a crucial role in the origins of biological life. Sufficiently rapid polymerisation by condensation needs a catalyst that works at temperatures beloiw the boiling point of water, and iron fits the bill. In the original Miller-Urey reaction, as described in Miller’s PhD thesis, the largest polymers formed on the electrodes, and this isn’t just because of proximity to high temperatures but also because the electrodes being made of iron act as a polymerisation catalyst.

> One early paper said that the early Earth had a metres-thick layer of hydrocarbons on the surface. I can well believe it. I have an idea that under a hydrogen dominated atmosphere, water evaporation from the surface layer generated condensation polymers, and water below the surface layer hydrolysed polymers that didn’t make the cut.

I still hold to that. Waves cause overturning of the surface layers generating a rapid cycle of condensation polymerisation and hydrolysis depolymerisation, speeding the natural selection of the most stable large polymers. The sheer bulk of the ocean surface far outweighs the piddly bulk of material in the intertidal zone and the even smaller amount near hydrothermal vents. The bottom of the ocean is another possibility, but tholins (oils with oxygen and nitrogen) float. The oil-water interface provides a fixture for surfactant polymers with both hydrophobic and hydrophyllic groups.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

(in seriousness I think a more profitable line of research would be virtual (ie computer-based) molecular modelling)

Do we actually know that?

I thought it was a possibility that life generated itself very soon after conditions allowed?

> Well, the first time ‘round it took about 600 million years and literally quintillions of litres of fluid, so that’s the kind of scale you need to be budgeting for.

I agree about the quintillions of litres of fluid, but possibly as short as a million years. It took only a decade or two for the Moon to form. About 100,000 years for all the asteroids.

(I’ll come back to that ‘computer-based molecular modelling’ later. I tried it myself, twice using different methods. I still have hope for it, but need to try a third method).

Hang on, two thoughts in my brain just collided with interesting consequences.

Suppose the solar system’s nebula provided the reducing conditions necessary for the first life, and that life “generated itself very soon after conditions allowed”.

Then we should find fossils of the first life on the Moon.

Such fossils would be rare, one part in a billion at best. One part in a quadrillion more likely.
The best place to find such fossils is in breccia, each grain is a separate sample. The Apollo and Lunik programs brought back lots of grains within rocks. Say a billion grains in all. So the probability of fossils of Earth’s primordial life in Apollo Moon rocks actually rises into perhaps the percentage range.

We already know that the Moon has more carbon on its surface than Mars has. What breccia grains in Apollo and Lunik moon rocks have a high carbon content?

If that works, then the origin of life on Earth could be discovered for a small amount of additional money, by simply analysing all the breccia moon rocks in fine detail?

> Then we should find fossils of the first life on the Moon.

First point of call should be LSPET reports. (Short for Lunar Surface Petrology?)

Earlier than those. You may be interested in the first science report from Apollo 11. https:www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11psr.pdf

Geological map around the Apollo 11 landing site.

Since a large fraction of lunar material came from Earth, it seems possible that the origin of life on Earth is preserved on the Moon.

QUARANTINE TESTING AND BIOCHARACTERIZATION OF LUNAR MATERIALS
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s5ch2.htm

A total of 35 plant species were exposed to lunar material returned during the Apollo 11 and 12 missions.
Approximately 500 gm of lunar material were required for each investigation. Analyses of data from the Apollo 11, 12, and 14 missions … samples used in Apollo 15, 16, and 17 postflight studies were composites of surface fines.

S = seed, G = Germination, A = Algae, TC = Tissue Culture, etc.

Seeds germinated in the presence of lunar materials grew vigorously. Bean, citrus, corn, sorghum, soybean, tobacco, and tomato plants showed no deleterious effects. In summary, a number of beneficial effects were observed to be associated with the use of lunar soil cultivation, and none of these effects was found to be associated with an infectious process.

Virological studies of the lunar material obtained during the Apollo missions consisted primarily of analyses for replicating agents. The fluid obtained from centrifuging 50 percent weight per volume (W/V) suspensions of lunar material in sterile media was used to inoculate the test systems. The material was tested for viruses on a variety of tissue cultures, as well as eggs, mice and mycoplasma.

15 species of animals representing five phyla were exposed to untreated lunar material.

A variety of samples from all six lunar exploration missions was examined for the presence of biological forms or viable organisms (Taylor & Wooley, 1973).

Taylor, G.R.; and Wooley, B.C.: Evaluations of Lunar Samples for the Presence of Viable Organisms. Proceedings of the Fourth Lunar Science Conference, Geochim Cosmochim Acta, vol. 2, 1973 pp. 2267-2274.

Nope. I’m wrong. No fossils of Earth-based proto-life on the Moon.

The entire Moon melted down to considerable depth during the process of accretion of Material from Earth.

It was only after that melting that the anorthositic layer floated to the surface, to be pulverised but not destroyed by later impacts.

So, sorry. Have to stick to Earth-based methods.

mollwollfumble said:

Nope. I’m wrong. No fossils of Earth-based proto-life on the Moon.

The entire Moon melted down to considerable depth during the process of accretion of Material from Earth.

It was only after that melting that the anorthositic layer floated to the surface, to be pulverised but not destroyed by later impacts.

So, sorry. Have to stick to Earth-based methods.

I suppose it is not impossible that some Earth-based proto-life fossil was sent into solar orbit and then landed on the Moon after that body had cooled…

I don’t know the origins of life but the universe without life has no purpose, without life to observe it the universe is pointless.

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t know the origins of life but the universe without life has no purpose, without life to observe it the universe is pointless.

Don’t think the Universe gives a damn. There is no purpose for existence, just the passage of time with the death and rebirth of stars and planets that will be testament enough that it exists. The universe does not need life to exist.

furious said:

that’s about the chemical worth of a human isn’t it?

furious said:

‘Tank Girl’.

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

that’s about the chemical worth of a human isn’t it?

is a human worth more directly combusted or allowed to live longer for ongoing metabolism at 100 W ¿

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

that’s about the chemical worth of a human isn’t it?

is a human worth more directly combusted or allowed to live longer for ongoing metabolism at 100 W ¿

well, I do know that when camping and the fire dies down you can use a couple of dry boy scouts to get it roaring again.

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that’s about the chemical worth of a human isn’t it?

is a human worth more directly combusted or allowed to live longer for ongoing metabolism at 100 W ¿

well, I do know that when camping and the fire dies down you can use a couple of dry boy scouts to get it roaring again.

We used to use faggots.

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that’s about the chemical worth of a human isn’t it?

is a human worth more directly combusted or allowed to live longer for ongoing metabolism at 100 W ¿

well, I do know that when camping and the fire dies down you can use a couple of dry boy scouts to get it roaring again.

That, that is all kinds of terrible…

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

is a human worth more directly combusted or allowed to live longer for ongoing metabolism at 100 W ¿

well, I do know that when camping and the fire dies down you can use a couple of dry boy scouts to get it roaring again.

We used to use faggots.

I joined the Zoroastrian Boy Scouts, we never let the fire go out.

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

is a human worth more directly combusted or allowed to live longer for ongoing metabolism at 100 W ¿

well, I do know that when camping and the fire dies down you can use a couple of dry boy scouts to get it roaring again.

That, that is all kinds of terrible…

and that’s why I got chucked out of scouts.

aaaaaakela!

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well, I do know that when camping and the fire dies down you can use a couple of dry boy scouts to get it roaring again.

That, that is all kinds of terrible…

and that’s why I got chucked out of scouts.

aaaaaakela!

Better out than in…

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

That, that is all kinds of terrible…

and that’s why I got chucked out of scouts.

aaaaaakela!

Better out than in…

was only a Cub. was fun for a 10 year old in the country.

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

and that’s why I got chucked out of scouts.

aaaaaakela!

Better out than in…

was only a Cub. was fun for a 10 year old in the country.

plus you had a woggle with a fleur-de-lis on it.

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well, I do know that when camping and the fire dies down you can use a couple of dry boy scouts to get it roaring again.

That, that is all kinds of terrible…

and that’s why I got chucked out of scouts.

aaaaaakela!

what if they were droll

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

and that’s why I got chucked out of scouts.

aaaaaakela!

Better out than in…

was only a Cub. was fun for a 10 year old in the country.

I went along with an associate, I remember there was some sort of rite of entry, a recitation or something. Couldn’t be bothered remembering it…

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

Better out than in…

was only a Cub. was fun for a 10 year old in the country.

I went along with an associate, I remember there was some sort of rite of entry, a recitation or something. Couldn’t be bothered remembering it…

dib dib dib dob dob dob akela we’ll do our best.

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

was only a Cub. was fun for a 10 year old in the country.

I went along with an associate, I remember there was some sort of rite of entry, a recitation or something. Couldn’t be bothered remembering it…

dib dib dib dob dob dob akela we’ll do our best.

Is that it? I’m not saying I’m lazy but, I’m probably lazy…

Cymek said:

It could be something that’s set up reasonably cheap, hopefully could run long term, could be a high school project that runs in the background and is checked regularly

That’s the style I’m hoping for.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Computer modelling and replicate / validate it in the real chemical world.

I’ve tried computer modelling twice. The first more successful.

The first approach was to use rules for probability of addition of single elements one at a time and grow large (or small) molecules from that. I was looking for molecules large enough to be enzymes. I ended up with this, the largest molecule I found this way. This is intriguing, but not all that useful. The take-home message to be learned from this is that large molecules from the primordial soup are likely to be rich in multi-ring aromatic groups, unlike the polymers in present lifeforms.

The second approach was to take note that the probability of molecule generation is governed by Gibbs Free Energy. The route to molecule formation is irrelevant, a single calculation will give the resultant concentration in a mix of any number of organic chemicals. By tabulating this for large numbers of molecules I hoped to find the result. The problem is that Gibbs Free Energy is known for only a very few organic chemicals, nowhere near enough. The next step up is to use Enthalpy as a stand-in for Gibbs Free Energy, it’s close enough most of the time. But even that isn’t known for very many molecules. Beyond that, it is possible to calculate Gibbs Free Energy from vibrational modes from the chemical formula – but that would require expert help so that was where I stopped.

This is one of those cases where it’s far easier and cheaper to just cook up the cake in real life and taste what comes out of the oven than to try to compute the taste from the ingredients and cooking time.

In fact, it mould be worthwhile doing the second approach in reverse. Use the measured concentrations from a Miller-Urey type experiment to get Gibbs Free Energy.